Bob Barr on Civil Rights

Patriot Act erodes our civil liberties

You count on third-party candidates to bring up issues the major parties aren’t touching. Nader, Barr, and Baldwin did that--and agreed. All are against the war in Iraq and want our troops out (probably much faster than Obama would take them out).
Barr, who regrets his 2002 vote for the Patriot Act, warned the Bush Administration had implemented a “tremendous unbridled growth of government power, and as a result, erosion of our civil liberties.” Nader agreed.

Criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals

Libertarian Presidential nominee Bob Barr (L-GA) has focused most of his criticism during the first weeks of his campaign at John McCain (R-AZ), hoping to garner substantial support from conservative Republicans.
Barr blasted McCain for his support of the Iraqi War, his energy policies and his stand of reducing government spending.

Despite his open appeal to conservatives,
Barr’s recent renunciations of Republican backed legislation will limit his appeal among movement conservatives. Barr has changed his mind and now strongly opposes the war, condemns the
Patriot Act as a violation of civil liberties, criticizes efforts to restrict rights of homosexuals, and even favors the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes.

Applying habeas in Guantanamo reaffirms fundamental liberty

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court made two critically important rulings. The first concluded that detainees in Guantanamo Bay could seek habeas corpus relief in federal court. The second stated that an American held by U.S. forces in Iraq was entitled to
the protection of habeas corpus.

With these two decisions the Court “has reaffirmed one of the foundations of American liberties, the historic writ of habeas corpus--which requires the authorities to show cause for an arrest,” explains Bob Barr.
The justices did not order anyone released, instead leaving that decision up to the trial judge after a full and fair hearing.

The decision “is as much a victory for the American people as it is for any particular litigant.”
The right to habeas corpus is enshrined in the Constitution: “by allowing a defendant to seek relief in court, habeas corpus is one of the most important legal limits on government,” explains Barr.

Authored Defense of Marriage Act

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions--or not--ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government
(as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our
nation was founded.

Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders,
and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states’ powers should work.

Source: Press Releases, “Same sex marriage decision”
May 15, 2008

Threats to liberty in post-9/11 world require libertarianism

Q: In 2003, Reason [a libertarian magazine] called you the “most conservative member of Congress.” How can you now lead the Libertarian party having once had that reputation?

A: I’ve had the opportunity over the last few years to work with the
Libertarians. They’ve had a chance to get to know me. Of course, there are always going to be some naysayers, but the vast majority of Libertarians that I’ve worked with have come to understand my views and my commitment to the Libertarian Party and its
principles. I also have explained many times to Libertarians that the post-9/11 world is a very different world from the one I served in Congress. The threats to our liberty in a post-9/11 world are dramatically greater than prior to that. The changes
have really necessitated--in my case and I think in the eyes of a lot of Americans--a re-evaluation of where we stand on a whole range of issues regarding government power and have highlighted the need to start rolling those back with greater urgency.

Source: Daniel Stone in Newsweek magazine
May 13, 2008

The Nanny State is getting increasingly intrusive

An increasingly intrusive Nanny State is watching over our nation, meddling in the lives of its citizens. New measures, often rushed through legislatures and regulatory agencies with little consideration or thought, seek to control ever more aspects of
people’s lives. Government limits individual actions and choices, from the way in which we educate our children to the food that we eat, from the type of light bulbs that illuminate our living rooms to the benefits that we receive for working.
It is time to again trust individuals to make their own decisions. At the core of libertarianism is a trust in and respect for the personal choices of every individual. All Americans should be free to decide what is best for themselves and their families
At the same time, they must bear personal responsibility for the consequences of the decisions that they make, whether those decisions prove to be good or bad.

Source: Campaign website, www.bobbarr2008.com, “Issues”
Apr 22, 2008

Took post with ACLU based on fundamental common interests

Q: A lot of people were surprised when you took a post with the ACLU, but you actually cooperated with them going back at least to the early Clinton years.

A: It started with the initial anti-terrorism bill in 1996. That probably was the first time tha
we recognized specifically that we had some very fundamental common interests. We worked together after that on several other pieces of legislation, such as the asset forfeiture reform, and the national driver’s license. I had always known them to be a
very consistent advocate for civil liberties, but we disagreed on so many issues that I never really sought them out in terms of an ally. But shortly after I came up to the Congress, we both realized that the size of government and the expansiveness of
government power were creating a smaller sphere of personal liberty and personal privacy, and that we needed to find allies in this fight, and work together on those issues in which we agree, and agree to disagree on the other issues.

Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions.

HR 6, the Higher Education Amendments Act of 1997, would prohibit any post-secondary institution that participates in any program under the Higher Education Act from discriminating or granting any preferential treatment in admission based on race, sex, ethnicity, color or national origin.

Supports anti-flag desecration amendment.

Barr co-sponsored a Constitutional Amendment:

Supports granting Congress power to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

Sponsored bill for "Privacy Impact Statement" on new rules.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT: It is clear that this bill's many cosponsors do not agree on every issue. The same can be said of the bill's noncongressional supporters, which include groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The sphere of privacy, which Justice Brandeis eloquently described as the ''right to be let alone,'' is not only rapidly diminishing, it is increasingly penetrable. The Federal Agency Protection of Privacy Act takes the first--necessary--step toward protecting the privacy of information collected by the federal government, by requiring that rules noticed for public comment by federal agencies be accompanied by an assessment of the rule's impact on personal privacy interests, including the extent to which the proposed rule provides notice of the collection of personally identifiable information, what information will be obtained, and how this informational will be collected, protected,
maintained, used and disclosed.

I want to emphasize H.R. 4561 will not unduly burden regulators nor will it hinder law enforcement. This bill will apply the best antiseptic--sunshine--to the federal rulemaking process by securing the public's right to know about how rules will affect their personal privacy.

EXCERPTS FROM BILL:

Requires Federal agencies, when promulgating a rule, to publish a privacy impact analysis.

Requires an agency promulgating a rule that may have a significant privacy impact on individuals to use specified techniques to assure that individuals have been given an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking.

Requires each agency to carry out a periodic review of promulgated rules that have privacy impact, every ten years after the rule was published.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME: Passed House on a voice vote; sent to Senate on Oct. 8, 2002; never called to vote in Senate.